Starlink Direct to Cell • Hacker News Board

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#471

Post by adastra22 » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 6:02 AM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #404

nordsieck wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, one of the central problems is the cost of launching stuff into space. Today, SpaceX offers world leading low prices to launch satellites: $4 m / tonne[1]. But Starlink has access to launch at cost , which is $0.86 m / tonne[2]. Which is a huge advantage when launching an enormous number of satellites. One thing to keep in mind, especially for these LEO constellations: the lifetime of these satellites is 5-10 ye…

It's not actually necessary to use reusable rockets to get at a similar cost per launch. Long March 5 is at 2.8M$/ton (so less than SpaceX commercial price). Also, 15M$/launch is not widely believed to be correct. There is much creative accounting SpaceX could be doing with Starlink (is at-cost account for booster depreciation? If so how, since we don't know how much reuse a booster can be expected to give? Or is it…

Boosters don’t depreciate. They are actually considered more valuable with more successful launches.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#472

Post by monkaiju » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 6:02 AM UTC

MBCook wrote: post #335

paxys wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You already have the option of escaping internet access, anywhere in the world – by turning off your device.

But we don’t have the option of opting out of trains of satellites in the sky ruining the view.

So true, its depressing...

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#473

Post by meta_x_ai » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 6:03 AM UTC

modeless wrote: post #297

mmaunder wrote: post #283

Vertical integration by Starlink of the cheapest launch capability in the world (by far) is the reason there are no competitors, and there will be no competitors. The pace of innovation at SpaceX is not THE reason - it’s an additional reason that no one has a snowballs chance in hell of ever catching Starlink. I’ve seen talk of competitor satellite networks or a possible competitor emerging. Folks it’s game set and m…

I disagree. Starlink is indeed awesome and SpaceX deserves every bit of their success. But there will be competitors eventually, if for no other reason than foreign militaries sponsoring them. There's no inherent reason for this to be a winner takes all market. We can only hope the competitors are half as responsible as SpaceX has been about space debris risk and ensuring the satellites are not visible to the naked e…

You have no idea the margins at which Elon Musk operates.

If you read his biography he is obsessive about cost cutting like no else in the history of mankind. There are plenty of examples where Musk brings down the cost of a component by 90%.

No other leader takes risks like Musk and hence he will always push frontiers.

His companies never get lazy or bloated even if it reaches $10T market cap.

Musk methods can't be replicated because it is the anti-thesis of every management practice.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#474

Post by nikkwong » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 6:04 AM UTC

hattmall wrote: post #467

dboreham wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically Starlink is not going to diagnose RF issues at your site. Microwave either works, or gets expensive fast (because you need an expensive person with expensive test equipment to properly investigate). A wild guess based on the available information is that reflections off the water surface are the cause.

Yeah I'm not really sure what issues you could reasonably expect a satellite internet provider to be troubleshooting at all. It's very much a 0 or 1 situation.

Then tell the customer that, rather than string them along for 8 months promising fixes (software or hardware), that never come in

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#475

Post by la64710 » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 6:05 AM UTC

modeless wrote: post #297

mmaunder wrote: post #283

Vertical integration by Starlink of the cheapest launch capability in the world (by far) is the reason there are no competitors, and there will be no competitors. The pace of innovation at SpaceX is not THE reason - it’s an additional reason that no one has a snowballs chance in hell of ever catching Starlink. I’ve seen talk of competitor satellite networks or a possible competitor emerging. Folks it’s game set and m…

I disagree. Starlink is indeed awesome and SpaceX deserves every bit of their success. But there will be competitors eventually, if for no other reason than foreign militaries sponsoring them. There's no inherent reason for this to be a winner takes all market. We can only hope the competitors are half as responsible as SpaceX has been about space debris risk and ensuring the satellites are not visible to the naked e…

This is already available in iPhone with their text based coverage: https://support.apple.com/en-us/120930

Probably they are using GSAT satellites.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#476

Post by Dylan16807 » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 6:05 AM UTC

OutOfHere wrote: post #406

lupusreal wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "smart enough to appreciate theory" Bro you "learned" this theory from popsci media, evidenced by your surface level understanding of it. Any debris in these orbits clears out in a few years, it's a complete non issue with this constellation.

I am aware it's a low orbit that clears faster, but some debris can still fly upward. And even a few years is quite enough to destroy everything in the low orbit.

Some will fly upward, but at worst it still deorbits pretty quickly, and most of it will deorbit immediately. That limits the risk a lot.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#477

Post by carabiner » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 6:05 AM UTC

system2 wrote: post #407

rafram wrote: post #37

I feel so, so mixed about this. It’s going to be unambiguously good for wilderness rescue and disaster response. But I like camping and hiking in remote areas in order to remove myself from the world. And I think the lack of connectivity discourages unprepared people from taking on more than they can handle in the wilderness. If the wilderness becomes fully connected, will it spoil that feeling? Will it lead to the l…

Garmin InReach has existed already for years. It didn't take the feeling away from me and I felt more comfortable having it in my backpack just in case. Wilderness adventures shouldn't be life or death experiences.

Starlink here, which includes data, is a huge jump from emergency SOS on Inreach. I do think we'll lose some of the magic of outdoors experiences when we can check nytimes.com and Reddit in the backcountry.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#478

Post by mullingitover » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 6:06 AM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #419

nordsieck wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the past this at-cost dealing would have been considered monopolistic enough to force divestment I guess we'll see what happens. As with most things monopoly related, the critical fight is over how to appropriately define the market. Presumably SpaceX would argue that Starlink is an ISP and that it just happens to use satellites to deliver its service. And if that doesn't work, then it's a satellite internet pro…

For obvious reasons I think it's pretty safe to say we can count on at least the next four years of zero regulation or government scrutiny of any company Musk is involved in, monopoly-related or otherwise.

Safe to say? You sure about that?

I’d say it’s just as likely that six months from now there will be a falling out, Musk will be called a pathetic loser, government agencies will be turned against him, etc.

If past behavior is any kind of indicator, it’s more likely than not. I would not be surprised if we see Musk doing a perp walk within 12 months.

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#479

Post by Nevermark » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 6:07 AM UTC

modeless wrote: post #297

mmaunder wrote: post #283

Vertical integration by Starlink of the cheapest launch capability in the world (by far) is the reason there are no competitors, and there will be no competitors. The pace of innovation at SpaceX is not THE reason - it’s an additional reason that no one has a snowballs chance in hell of ever catching Starlink. I’ve seen talk of competitor satellite networks or a possible competitor emerging. Folks it’s game set and m…

I disagree. Starlink is indeed awesome and SpaceX deserves every bit of their success. But there will be competitors eventually, if for no other reason than foreign militaries sponsoring them. There's no inherent reason for this to be a winner takes all market. We can only hope the competitors are half as responsible as SpaceX has been about space debris risk and ensuring the satellites are not visible to the naked e…

> There's no inherent reason for this to be a winner takes all market.

Economics?

Competitors would have to match SpaceX's vertical integration: Satellite design, reusable launches at cost, its exiting armada of satellites, and its moving target of customer penetration. The latter is huge. Starlink is clearly not satisfied leaving any satellite demand on the table.

There is no military on Earth that has demand for satellite bandwidth approaching anything like SpaceX's, which is basically being designed to meet the needs of the whole planet.

Note that militaries (US, China, Russia, Europe, ...) have their custom means of communicating on planet, for unique reasons, but the vast majority of their communication is over commercial cell phones. This is no different.

If anyone was going to have a chance, it was Bezos. But neither his launch capabilities, or big satellite constellation plans, have amounted to much.

China will feel the need to try. But they won't have SpaceX's customer base to support a fraction of a comparable effort. (And I say that as someone who has tremendous respect for the multi-decade cadence of their space capability march.)

Re: Starlink Direct to Cell

#480

Post by starspangled » Mon, Nov 25, 2024, 6:08 AM UTC

btilly wrote: post #443

starspangled wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You believe the FAA, FCC, OHSA, EPA, FDA, etc., will cease to regulate SpaceX, Tesla, Nuralink operations? That seems pretty outlandish.

Elon Musk was just appointed by Donald Trump as being in charge of firing half of the government. He won't likely do that. But any regulator who gets in his way? Yeah, not many will volunteer for "the firing line."

I really don't know what Musk has been appointed to do and it's a laughably blatant conflict of interest, but conflicts of interest seem to be what the entire government is built on. Politicians involved with energy and military companies are involved in decisions to go to war, generals get lucrative consultancy jobs at military firms, congress makes billions of dollars insider trading, foreign aid somehow finds its way funneled through "charities" owned by the ruling class, politicians cosy with medical companies block real healthcare reform, etc.

Musk isn't anything new or different here. The idea that he'll just be above the law is fearmongering hyperbole though. Sure he'll get favorable treatment and be able to push his agenda to degrees well out of reach of us commoners. No more than if he'd just stayed in the shadows and bought his politicians and judges and bureaucrats and generals like a normal billionaire.